Corey Johnson v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999608583-2], updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 3:07-cv-00731-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999640576]. Mailed to: Corey E. Johnson SUSSEX II STATE PRISON 24427 Musselwhite Drive Waverly, VA 23891-2222. [15-6803]

Appeal: 15-6803

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6803

COREY E. JOHNSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge; James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00731JRS)

Submitted:

August 6, 2015

Decided:

August 14, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Appeal: 15-6803

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6803

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Corey

E.

Johnson

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

orders denying his most recent Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his

28

U.S.C.

reconsideration.
justice

or

judge

§ 2254

(2012)

petition,

and

denying

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
issues

a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (4th Cir. 2004).
issue

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Johnson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
3

Appeal: 15-6803

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4